Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberate domains

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate domains

Liberate domains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software, fails

Delete-Sounds like an advertisement there at the end. Fails notability hands down as stated above. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 17:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above comment. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as an advert, and there doesn't seem to be any notability, alongside the lack of citations -Toon^{0 5} 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:NOTADVERTISING unless some valid citations for notability are added.--Finalnight (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - as the consensus so far is that it is advertising I will nominate for speedy per G11.  –  ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, and per

WP:COATRACK. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - as the consensus so far is that it is advertising I will nominate for speedy per G11.  –  ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy This has not been up long enough to snow. Let's let the AFD run and maybe someone will come up with notability and sourcing so that we can keep the thing with a rewrite. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote, shortened, and attempted to create a more neutral article. Does this new format make the article any more acceptable? Thank you in advance for your help--Zenith716 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it stands the article barely demonstrates the notability of the subject. You will need to come up with some more sources. Links to other WP articles and the business' own website don't count as

reliable sources.  –  ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Thank you for your quick reply. I have made a few changes and will make more as time is available. Your help is appreciated.--Zenith716 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: article has changed substantially since the majority of the debate occurred. Relisting so the article as it now stands can be discussed.

• Delete, sources in the article simply refer to the problem the software is supposed to address, not the actual software. This still fails notability. Of the 10 references in the article, only 3 mention actually concern the software and two of these references are the vendor's website. The one external source is a local news website that doesn't help it meet the notability requirements.
  talk) 10:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Heavily Modify Agree with statement above. Comment: I do see a potential for something on this in the future (maybe). If notability can be brought up (as in someone using it, mentioning, etc.), I will switch to keep, since it would save time than rewriting it, but since this software is not yet notable, and because it describes the problem more than the notability (it does describe how the software works, I'll give you that), I'm staying with delete for now. Perhaps instead it should be mentioned briefly on the article on cybersquatting as a possible solution instead and link to the website instead of having a wiki page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.